Western Navascuez
18-02-2004, 04:01
First off, good job to the people who wrote these issues (and Affirmative Action and Sacramental Tax Time), they were well written and balanced issues for the most part
Options one and two both have good points, but I'm not sure which is the better of the two (3 and 4 are out of the question)
"We need this water to raise our crops," says incensed farmer Peggy du Pont. "If it wasn't for us farmers, the rest of Western Navascuez would be starving. How about laying the blame where it belongs, and look to those cookie cutter suburban houses with their green lawns and pristinely washed mini-vans!"
[Accept]
"It is my right to have the most beautiful lawn in the neighborhood," says neighborhood spokesman Stephanie Mombota. "our community spends alot of effort cultivated a nice environment for our kids to grow up in. Why, if they didn't have these nice lawns to play in, they would be hanging out on street corners peddling drugs, or worse! Wont someone please think of the children?"
[Accept]
"Here is a novel idea," proclaims Buy Licorish, spokesperson for radical environmental group Leave Nature Alone. "How about getting rid of all these dams and irrigation projects that are getting in the way of Mother Nature's plans for the water. It is time to allow the rivers to take their natural courses and leave the environment alone. I'm sure things will work out fine if we let Nature take its course."
[Accept]
"Obviously, who gets how much water is only a part of the problem." Notes famed population-control advocate Anne-Marie Shiomi. "We must try to curtail the rapid growth of our population, whether by limiting the amount of children people may have, or by deporting immigrants and criminals... we must get a handle on our population before we can hope to correct this water supply problem."
[Accept]
AND...
I want to say option 1, but what are it's effects?
"Who cares about a few trees, gas prices are six dollars per gallon, and rising! There is lots of oil to be found in areas currently protected as parks! Solving our energy needs are more important than conserving the environment," says oil executive Jennifer Christmas. "Just give us permission to go in there and start drilling, and gas prices will plummet!"
[Accept]
"There are other ways to recover from the fossil fuel crisis besides ruining forests," says environmental activist Zeke Longbottom. "We shouldn't just take the short way out and drill here. I suggest spending more money on public transportation systems and encouraging people to carpool- if people weren't so reliant on fossil fuel powered cars, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place, and if we start using less oil, the price will drop with the demand."
[Accept]
EDIT (Sorry :oops: ):
I've been sitting on this issue for almost a month now. Option one is OUT OF THE QUESTION, no doubt about it. Two sounds good but I don't want to lower political freedoms (or civil rights) by having the government investigate the motives. Option 3 is decent, but it'll increase government size. Out of 2 and 3, which is best?
"A universal healthcare system would provide everyone with the same quality healthcare the more wealthy and well-insured currently receive," says recently laid-off citizen and civil rights activist Roxanne Thiesen. "Sure, taxes would probably have to increase a bit. But isn't it worth it to provide our lower-class citizens with the same opportunities the upper-class citizens have?"
[Accept]
"Are you all INSANE? This will ruin the health insurance business and drive up unemployment rates," argues Falala McGuffin, head of the largest insurance provider in Western Navascuez. "If everyone working for their health insurance could suddenly get it free, there would be fewer jobs filled. It would get worse for everyone involved. The government should investigate the motives of these troublemaking 'protestors', instead!"
[Accept]
"Why do we have to choose either radical option?" says your Secretary of Health, Beth Fellow. "Couldn't we just provide limited basic healthcare for our citizens and have major operations covered by private health insurance? It would be more affordable and the poor would suffer less than they do under the current system."
[Accept]
Options one and two both have good points, but I'm not sure which is the better of the two (3 and 4 are out of the question)
"We need this water to raise our crops," says incensed farmer Peggy du Pont. "If it wasn't for us farmers, the rest of Western Navascuez would be starving. How about laying the blame where it belongs, and look to those cookie cutter suburban houses with their green lawns and pristinely washed mini-vans!"
[Accept]
"It is my right to have the most beautiful lawn in the neighborhood," says neighborhood spokesman Stephanie Mombota. "our community spends alot of effort cultivated a nice environment for our kids to grow up in. Why, if they didn't have these nice lawns to play in, they would be hanging out on street corners peddling drugs, or worse! Wont someone please think of the children?"
[Accept]
"Here is a novel idea," proclaims Buy Licorish, spokesperson for radical environmental group Leave Nature Alone. "How about getting rid of all these dams and irrigation projects that are getting in the way of Mother Nature's plans for the water. It is time to allow the rivers to take their natural courses and leave the environment alone. I'm sure things will work out fine if we let Nature take its course."
[Accept]
"Obviously, who gets how much water is only a part of the problem." Notes famed population-control advocate Anne-Marie Shiomi. "We must try to curtail the rapid growth of our population, whether by limiting the amount of children people may have, or by deporting immigrants and criminals... we must get a handle on our population before we can hope to correct this water supply problem."
[Accept]
AND...
I want to say option 1, but what are it's effects?
"Who cares about a few trees, gas prices are six dollars per gallon, and rising! There is lots of oil to be found in areas currently protected as parks! Solving our energy needs are more important than conserving the environment," says oil executive Jennifer Christmas. "Just give us permission to go in there and start drilling, and gas prices will plummet!"
[Accept]
"There are other ways to recover from the fossil fuel crisis besides ruining forests," says environmental activist Zeke Longbottom. "We shouldn't just take the short way out and drill here. I suggest spending more money on public transportation systems and encouraging people to carpool- if people weren't so reliant on fossil fuel powered cars, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place, and if we start using less oil, the price will drop with the demand."
[Accept]
EDIT (Sorry :oops: ):
I've been sitting on this issue for almost a month now. Option one is OUT OF THE QUESTION, no doubt about it. Two sounds good but I don't want to lower political freedoms (or civil rights) by having the government investigate the motives. Option 3 is decent, but it'll increase government size. Out of 2 and 3, which is best?
"A universal healthcare system would provide everyone with the same quality healthcare the more wealthy and well-insured currently receive," says recently laid-off citizen and civil rights activist Roxanne Thiesen. "Sure, taxes would probably have to increase a bit. But isn't it worth it to provide our lower-class citizens with the same opportunities the upper-class citizens have?"
[Accept]
"Are you all INSANE? This will ruin the health insurance business and drive up unemployment rates," argues Falala McGuffin, head of the largest insurance provider in Western Navascuez. "If everyone working for their health insurance could suddenly get it free, there would be fewer jobs filled. It would get worse for everyone involved. The government should investigate the motives of these troublemaking 'protestors', instead!"
[Accept]
"Why do we have to choose either radical option?" says your Secretary of Health, Beth Fellow. "Couldn't we just provide limited basic healthcare for our citizens and have major operations covered by private health insurance? It would be more affordable and the poor would suffer less than they do under the current system."
[Accept]